Evidencias de Validez del Cuestionario Portilho/Banas Estilos de Enseñanza

Batista, Giovani de Paula; Portilho, Evelise Maria Labatut; Rufini, Sueli Édi

doi:10.1590/1982-43272562201505

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Articles • Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto) 25 (62) • Sep-Dec 2015 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-43272562201505 copiar

Evidencias de Validez del Cuestionario Portilho/Banas Estilos de Enseñanza

Autoría SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Resumen

La utilización de instrumentos con evidencias de validez para investigaciones en el campo de la educación resulta en avances en la producción de conocimientos. La finalidad en este estudio fue conocer evidencias de validez factorial y consistencia interna de los ítems componentes del Cuestionario Portilho/Banas de Estilos de Enseñanza. Participaron de la investigación 1000 profesores de diferentes niveles de enseñanza. El análisis factorial exploratorio indicó una estructura de cuatro factores a los que se agruparon 55 ítems con carga factorial superior a .30. El trabajo de correlación permitió identificar cómo los cuatro factores establecen relación entre sí. Como resultado final, el cuestionario consta de 40 artículos, divididos en 10 para cada estilo de enseñanza. Se observaron evidencias de la validez factorial y consistencia interna de los ítems que componen el instrumento. El ANOVA indicó que la escala era sensible a las diferencias individuales cuando se comparan los cuatro estilos de enseñanza y las variables de género y nivel de educación.

Palabras clave:
escalas; análisis factorial; enseñanza; educación; profesores

Item	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4
1. I plan my class considering the possibility of making changes in the discipline program.	-	-	-	.36
2. I try to make an objective, coherent and structured class plan.	-	-	-	.55
3. I try to select different teaching strategies for each content area.	.46	-	-	-
5. I tend to prioritize teaching strategies with group work.	.54	-	-	-
6. I dedicate more time than planned to work some specific contents.	-	-	-	.32
7. I tend to not follow the planning; I more often improvise.	-	-	.32	-.38
8. I use teaching strategies that promote constructive discussion.	.44	-	-	-
9. I insist that my students review exercises before handing them back to me.	-	.38	-	-
10. In assessments, I prioritize open-ended and lengthy questions.	-	.41	-	-
11. In assessment activities, I demand well-supported answers.	-	.62	-	-
12. I plan my classes in order to cover all details of the content.	-	-	-	.49
13. I notice that my student learned when he/she masters the logic sequence of content worked.	-	-	.30	.37
14. When planning my classes, I seek to articulate theory and practice.	.45	-	-	-
15. I notice that my student learned based on fair results achieved in formal grades.	-	.34	.32	-
16. I plan my classes foreseeing chill-out moments of the groups.	.53	-	-	-
17. I plan my classes to provide plenty of time for students to develop experience with content given.	.58	-	-	-
19. I prioritize students' autonomy when they are doing the proposed activities.	.44	-	-	-
20. I plan my classes seeking to give meaning to content according to students' routine.	.52	-	-	-
21. I enable students to discuss the content given.	.59	-	-	-
22. I use discussion as a teaching strategy, but ideas should be based on previous studies.	.55	-	-	-
23. In tests I recommend students to give short, precise and direct answers.	-	-	.56	-
25. I plan my classes prioritizing teaching strategies that favor the detailed analysis of content.	-	.35	-	.54
26. I seek to work with content by contextualizing subjects and the author, regardless of the discipline.	.32	.35	-	-
27. I give priority to teaching strategies that enable students to search for "reasons" that explain his/her ideas.	.46	.41	-	-
28. I plan my classes prioritizing teaching strategies that promote thought.	.54	.31	-	-
29. I work with content always integrating it to a broader theoretical milestone.	.33	.37	-	-
30. I prefer teaching strategies that promote individual work.	-	-	-	.34
	-	-	-	-

Item	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4
31. In assessed activities, I promote competitiveness.	-	-	.44	-
34. I use teaching strategies that promote construction of practical and fast solutions.	-	-	.54	-
35. I promote discussion of subjects, problems and/or real situations.	.54	-	-	-
36. I try to not spend too much time with theoretical explanations.	-	-	.43	-
37. I perceive that my student learned when they study the content outside of the classroom.	-	.33	-	-
38. I prefer group work in my classes.	.57	-	-	-
39. I use listening as the basis for thinking about learned subjects.	.51	-	-	-
40. I use didactic resources that enable students to do detailed analyses of situations.	.39	-	-	.37
41. I use class activities in the classroom that require, from my end, structure and objectivity.	-	-	-	.50
42. I prefer, during my classes, activities that enable students to work with observation and detailing of the proposed subject.		.33		.41
43. In tests, I seek to include fewer questions.	-	-	.47	-
44. I plan my classes foreseeing the control of the class, to avoid discursion.	-	-	-	.40
45. I use teaching strategies that promote solving of daily life problems.	.44	-	-	-
46. In handouts, I try to give clear instructions concerning procedures to be done.	-	.34	-	-
47. I never assign another activity until all analysis and arguments of possibilities of the present topic have ended.	-	.44	-	-
48. During tests, I request that students answer questions in a logical and coherent manner.	-	.65	-	-
49. In assessment activities, I prefer to elaborate summaries with clear concepts.	-	.64	-	-
50. I give plenty of time for students to complete tests.	-	.47	-	-
51. I notice that my student learned when he/she can formulate examples based on the theory.	-	.51	.30	-
52. In tests, I consider it relevant when the student argues about a point of view.	.30	.48	-	-
53. I notice that my student learned when he/she could transfer the content to a practical situation.	.38	.32	-	-
54. In tests, I create questions that require detailed analysis of contents presented in the classroom.	-	.55	-	-
55. I substitute explanation for practical activities.	.37	-	.46	-
56. I use teaching strategies that work with experience and activities related to the students' environment.	.60	-	-	-
57. I stimulate students to participate in presentations and discussions.	.62	-	-	-
58. In tests, I prioritize practical questions.	-	-	.60	-
59. In tests, I demand that students answer questions directly and briefly.	-	-	.58	-
60. I seek to diversify didactic resources used in classes.	.51	-	-	-

Variable	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4
ED ¹	1	-	-	-
EA ²	.59	1	-	-
ES ³	.24	.42	1	-
EP ⁴	.51	.70	.37	1

	Sex						F	p
	Female			Male
	n	M	SD	n	M	SD
ED ¹	729	4.02	.43	269	3.94	.47	6.44	.01
EA ²	729	3.93	.48	270	3.96	.46	0.83	.36
ES ³	729	3.07	.57	269	3.14	.57	2.74	.09
EP ⁴	730	3.93	.47	270	3.87	.49	3.07	.07

	Children's Education			Primary School			High School			Primary/High School			Higher Education			Children's Education/Primary School			F	p
	M	N	SD	M	N	SD	M	N	SD	M	N	SD	M	N	SD	M	N	SD	F	p
ED ¹	4.19	77	.39	3.98	484	.42	4	131	.49	3.99	290	.45	3.97	8	.26	3.86	8	.2	3.48	.00
EA ²	3.7	77	.53	3.91	484	.48	4.01	131	.48	4.03	291	.42	3.75	8	.32	3.68	8	.49	7.7	.00
ES ³	2.89	76	.55	3.04	484	.58	3.17	131	.53	3.21	291	.54	2.3	8	.43	3.02	8	.36	9.14	.00
EP ⁴	3.85	77	.51	3.9	484	.49	3.96	132	.47	3.95	291	.46	3.43	8	.47	3.82	8	.45	2.64	.02

Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Filosofia Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Psicologia Av.Bandeirantes 3900 - Monte Alegre, 14040-901 Ribeirão Preto - São Paulo - Brasil, Tel.: (55 16) 3315-3829 - Ribeirão Preto - SP - Brazil
E-mail: paideia@usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence address: Giovani de Paula Batista. Secretaria de Estado da Educação do Paraná. Rua Araucária, 493, casa 08, Jardim Guraituba. CEP 83410-080. Colombo-PR, Brazil. giovanip_batista@hotmail.com